Legal Opinion
Omernik v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided June 4, 1974No. State 4, 5PublishedCited by 100 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.
With the evidence circumstantial but sufficient to support conviction, the issues on this appeal become (1) the reach, and (2) the validity of the statute which the defendant was found to have violated.
The statute. The statute involved, requiring a permit from the state department of natural resources for cer tain, diversions of water from lakes and streams, provides as follows:
“30.18 Diversion of water from lakes and streams. (1) When diversion lawful, (a) It is lawful to temporarily divert the surplus water of any stream for the purpose of bringing back or maintaining the normal level of…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- State Ex Rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La PlanteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Just v. Marinette CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by100 opinions
- In Re Water Use Permit ApplicationsHawaii Supreme Court · 2000
- Aicher Ex Rel. LaBarge v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation FundWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
- Stanhope v. Brown CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- Sambs v. City of BrookfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Ferdon Ex Rel. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation FundWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
95 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.